Proposed DCNH Descriptions for Each Type

I've been studying Gulenko's DCNH subtype system for quite a while now, and I think I have a solid enough understanding of it to fill in some of the holes. As far as I know, Gulenko never did write up DCNH descriptions for each of the 16 types. While the general correlations I discovered between the Meged/Ovcharov & Gulenko descriptions of the standard subtype model and the DCNH subtype model are interesting, I don't think they should be relied upon definitively. Ultimately, unless someone can find descriptions by Gulenko, it'll be up to us to come up with them.

I've started with LII, being the type I know most intimately. These descriptions are not based on any other descriptions; instead I tried to base them on a combination of functional analysis, and behavioural analysis of the LIIs whose DCNH subtypes I have been able to determine.

DCNH Subtype Descriptions for LII

Dominant: tries to influence the world by his wisdom and intellect, in an almost Machiavellian way. People are chess pieces to be influenced in the right direction, in pursuit of his goal. He does this, not because he enjoys it, but because he feels it is necessary. He prefers to take a back seat from the action, directing and guiding others, but he will step in himself if he must. When the weight of the world is not on his shoulders, he may reveal a mirthful sense of humour, but this is seldom.

Creative: has a sort of reserved openness about him. Can be very absent-minded; you may occasionally find him quietly pacing about, staring off into space, mumbling to himself, a frown of concentration on his face. He is defined by his curiosity; he wants to learn how everything works, and why everything is the way it is. As far as he is concerned, learning is its own reward, and he is baffled that others do not feel the same way. He can be oblivious of social problems, sometimes even oblivious of other people entirely. He has a strong ironic wit, and may use sarcasm as a weapon. Conscious of his appearance, he tries to dress well, but if he has lost himself in his studies for a few days (as he is known to do), he may appear rumpled and wild-haired.

Normalizing: appears stern, emotionless, robotic. Gives the impression of solidity, stability, and immovability. Attempts to make him show emotion almost always fail. His primary focus is on logically and ethically correct systems and behaviour. In any given task, he hones in on what is most important, and ignores all distractions, almost as if he is not a part of the world around him. Deconstructs abstract and theoretical problems with ease. Can be sharp and unforgiving, intentionally or otherwise. Clothing is very conservative, neat and tidy.

Harmonizing: at his best, he gives the impression of sublime tranquility, at his worst, nervous awkwardness. He tries to create harmony, resolve problems, and avoids violence. He likes nothing more than a comfortable evening hanging out with a few good friends -- he is probably the most easygoing and sociable of the LIIs. He may come across as a "loveable geek".

Constructive feedback (i.e., feedback you can back up with logic and evidence) is appreciated. I'm not entirely certain of the Harmonizing description, and to a certain degree, the Dominant. But I'm pretty confident of the Creative and Normalizing descriptions.

Harmonize - šitoksai Rob-peacemaker, a little more "white and fluffy" than griežtokam and užsispyrusiam should be subject to what, under the idea should be a basic white logic. In contrast to the dominant, it is just a soft human experience, and often it is actually available. His typical stubbornness did not disappear, but it becomes more of an internal category - it will not take no principles push their issues and come to the aid easy opponent, but of what is important to him, the fight for the truth directly from the principle of "live or die." This is the paradoksaliausias subtype: if, when at any other IMTipą unlike man, the LII is also neiškrenta, "but why, demons, hell, and it is duck?"

HA! So I was right! Revolutioniaries like Robespierre or Che Guevara are Harmonizing Analysts, indeed.

As I understand it, D types strengthen both the Te and Fe
H types strengthen both the Si and Ni
C types strengthen both the Se and Ne
N types strengthen both the Ti and Fi

Yar?

I can see this, I suppose from a functional POV, take for instance the D sub type:

As Te increases, Ti goes down, the corresponding DS function of Ti is Fe, so therefore the use of Fe goes up (and it's opposite function Fi, therefore goes down). So in this circumstance, you have a type which puts more emphasis on their Te and Fe.

Same thing seems to apply to all the H, C and N, by having a rather quick look at it.

So, I suppose, one couldn't be for instance, a C-SLI (eg) if they were a SLI-Te, because they would therefore be by the DCNH system, a D-SLI? Maybe obvious, but I thought it was an interesting clarification point for those who normally use the two sub type system. Maybe those who don't really have a sub type on the 2-sub type system would have a sub type on the 4 sub type system.

So, I suppose, one couldn't be for instance, a C-SLI (eg) if they were a SLI-Te, because they would therefore be by the DCNH system, a D-SLI? Maybe obvious, but I thought it was an interesting clarification point for those who normally use the two sub type system.

Yes, that is true. I tried to explain it but was called a "fuckstick" and "schmuck" for knowing the truth.

Originally Posted by Cyclops

Maybe those who don't really have a sub type on the 2-sub type system would have a sub type on the 4 sub type system.

People who dont have a subtype certainly don't exist. There are just people who don't know their subtype.

Here's my attempt at cleaning up the translations of the site Diana linked to. I don't speak Russian, so I used all the Internet-based translators and Russian-English dictionaries available to me. Hopefully this is something close to accurate.

Normalizing Rob - very similar to its standard description, very rational, orderly, gets to the bottom of everything, boring, talks in long complicated and compound sentences. An exaggeration, of course, but there is something in this.

Creative - something similar to Don Quixote [ILE], absent-minded, sometimes restless, sometimes inhibited, has lively inquisitive eyes, is inclined to be guided by the notion of "interesting" and not "right", rather highly scattered, the generator of ideas, only half of which (at best) lead to anything. The description of Gorenko-Tolstikova depicts just such an LII.

Dominant - it can be taken for black logic. It is confident in himself, in what he is doing and what he aspires to. Is able to and loves to work; the Gamma notion of "efficiency" is not just an empty phrase for him (but with a difference from Gamma in that "is able" comes first rather than "loves" - the values of Alpha are not thrown away). Separates the primary from the secondary in his life without excessive reflection. As a rule, alert and cheerful; an inner strength is felt in him.

Harmonizing Rob - a sort of peacemaker, slightly "soft and fluffy" for the rigid and stubborn person which, in theory, base white logic should be. In contrast to the Dominant, he just gives the impression of a gentle man, and often he really is. His type's stubbornness has not gone anywhere, but it has become more of an internal category - he will not press unimportant matters, he will readily go meet an opponent, but if it is significant to him, he will defend the truth literally to the death. This is the most paradoxical subtype: that instance where no other man does not look like TIM, from LII also did not fall out, "But why the hell is he so nice?"

I'm not sure what that last line means, but I think it's talking about Harmonizing LIIs are unusually nice for LII.

Actually, I'm kidding, the proper translation of that last bit is "but why, demons, hell, and it is duck?"

And Che, that description of Harmonizing Robespierre sounds like one of the least likely people in the socion to be a revolutionary. Dominant or Creative, maybe, but Harmonizing? You're seeing what you want to see, man.

I've partially rewritten the Dominant and Harmonizing descriptions of the LII subtypes, based on insights from the descriptions Diana posted. Like I said, this is a work in progress, so any constructive feedback would be great.

LII Subtypes

Mental Ring Subtypes

Normalizing: appears stern, emotionless, robotic. Gives the impression of solidity, stability, and immovability. Attempts to make him show emotion almost always fail. His primary focus is on logically and ethically correct systems and behaviour. In any given task, he hones in on what is most important, and ignores all distractions, almost as if he is not a part of the world around him. Deconstructs abstract and theoretical problems with ease. Can be sharp and unforgiving, intentionally or otherwise. Clothing is very conservative, neat and tidy.

Creative: has a sort of reserved openness about him. Can be very absent-minded; you may occasionally find him quietly pacing about, staring off into space, mumbling to himself, a frown of concentration on his face. He is defined by his curiosity; he wants to learn how everything works, and why everything is the way it is. As far as he is concerned, learning is its own reward, and he is baffled that others do not feel the same way. He can be oblivious of social problems, sometimes even oblivious of other people entirely. He has a strong ironic wit, and may use sarcasm as a weapon. Conscious of his appearance, he tries to dress well, but if he has lost himself in his studies for a few days (as he is known to do), he may appear rumpled and wild-haired.

Vital Ring Subtypes

Dominant: more confident and outwardly-focused than the other LII subtypes. He tries to influence the world by his wisdom and intellect, in an almost Machiavellian way. The world is his chessboard, and people and things are his chess pieces, to be moved about strategically in pursuit of his goal. He does this, not because he enjoys it, but because he feels it is necessary. Goal-oriented; when he decides upon a goal, he will analyze the situation, choose the best strategy for acheiving it, and then follow through until the goal is acheived. However, he does not like to be on the front lines; he feels his skills are best used directing and advising others, and will only take action himself if it is necessary. When not in "business mode", he can be quite mirthful and good-humoured. Good at socializing, when necessary.

Harmonizing: gives the impression of softness. Not as resolute as the other LII subtypes. While he does have an internal logical and moral system, he doesn't express it very much, especially if doing so will create tension. He tries to create harmony, resolve problems, and avoids violence. He likes nothing more than a comfortable evening hanging out with a few good friends -- he is probably the most easygoing and sociable of the LIIs. He may come across as a "loveable geek".

Originally Posted by Huitzilopochtli

BTW Quaere Verum is the motto of the International Society for Philosophical Enquiry, of which I am a member...

Neat. I've thought about trying to join one of those smart-people groups, but it's always seemed like it would be more of a hassle than a benefit, assuming I did get in.

I'm not entirely certain of the grammar of the Latin in my signature. Latin grammar is very complicated.

Harmonizing Rob - he will not press unimportant matters, he will readily go meet an opponent, but if it is significant to him, he will defend the truth literally to the death. This is the most paradoxical subtype

And Che, that description of Harmonizing Robespierre sounds like one of the least likely people in the socion to be a revolutionary.

What the heck...?

"He will defend the truth literally to the death". Isn't that a sentence of your description? If you replace "truth" by "ideology" you have exactly a Robespierre or Che Guevara or Osama bin Laden.

That's why this subtype is called the most paradoxical subtype which is also a statement of your description. Both Che Guevara and Osama bin Laden are known as very nice people. Nevertheless, they defend their ideas of truth and justice literally to the death.

How many H-LIIs do you know personally?

Peter Parker (Spider-Man), Magneto (X-Men) and Captain Picard (Star Trek) are very good examples of H-LIIs. Do you see why this subtype is so paradoxical - Magneto is known as a super-villain. Nevertheless, he only fights for freedom and justice (literally to the death)...

"He will defend the truth literally to the death". Isn't that a sentence of your description? If you replace "truth" by "ideology" you have exactly a Robespierre or Che Guevara or Osama bin Laden.

That's why this subtype is called the most paradoxical subtype which is also a statement of your description. Both Che Guevara and Osama bin Laden are known as very nice people. Nevertheless, they defend their ideas of truth and justice literally to the death.

How many H-LIIs do you know personally?

Peter Parker (Spider-Man), Magneto (X-Men) and Captain Picard (Star Trek) are very good examples of H-LIIs. Do you see why this subtype is so paradoxical - Magneto is known as a super-villain. Nevertheless, he only fights for freedom and justice (literally to the death)...

I think all that is turning you into a γ; in fact, all I really notice about you is your criticality, expertise, and creative extroverted logic...

That is the Greek letter gamma (lowercase); lack of understanding is not typical of -creating or -accepting...more things I think you misunderstand...Osama Bin Laden, understanding, ideals, introverted judging, extroverted perceiving, subjectivity, reasoning, etc. The fact that you identify highly with an icon as your avatar shows to me implies creative extroverted judging; the fact that you would so grossly misjudge Osama Bin Laden seems very Ni-accepting indeed. I am sure if you were in the WTC during 9/11 your introverted intuition would be accepting something quite different indeed...

the fact that you would so grossly misjudge Osama Bin Laden seems very Ni-accepting indeed. I am sure if you were in the WTC during 9/11 your introverted intuition would be accepting something quite different indeed...

How do I misjudge him? I just stated the fact that Osama bin Laden fights for freedom and justice. George W. Bush did not invade Afghanistan and Iraq because of freedom and justice but because of ressources, power and elections. You see the difference?

How do I misjudge him? I just stated the fact that Osama bin Laden fights for freedom and justice. George W. Bush did not invade Afghanistan and Iraq because of freedom and justice but because of ressources, power and elections. You see the difference?

No, I don't see the difference. Your signature is misleading, but I didn't take you for a static or a rational. Osama Bin Laden doesn't fight he runs. He looks at war as a personal financial enterprise which he funds because he is rich and opinionated, much like George Bush. For an α you are not very subjective...

Your signature is misleading, but I didn't take you for a static or a rational.

My signature is not misleading but clarifying. I'm a static rational with a dynamic irrational subtype. I can't see your problem. Maybe you are not familiar with the DCNH system?

Originally Posted by Huitzilopochtli

Osama Bin Laden doesn't fight he runs. He looks at war as a personal financial enterprise which he funds because he is rich and opinionated, much like George Bush.

No, that's not correct. Bin Laden was a Mujahid in the war against the Sovjet Union. He is not a financier but a fighter. Instead of G.W.Bush he doesn't fight for ressources, power or results of the election. He fights for freeing the Arabic world from the Soviet, American and Israeli aggression.

My signature is not misleading but clarifying. I'm a static rational with a dynamic irrational subtype. I can't see your problem. Maybe you are not familiar with the DCNH system?

No, that's not correct. Bin Laden was a Mujahid in the war against the Sovjet Union. He is not a financier but a fighter. Instead of G.W.Bush he doesn't fight for ressources, power or results of the election. He fights for freeing the Arabic world from the Soviet, American and Israeli aggression.

After leaving college in 1979 bin Laden joined Abdullah Azzam to fight the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan[44] and lived for a time in Peshawar.[45] By 1984, with Azzam, bin Laden established Maktab al-Khadamat, which funneled money, arms and Muslim fighters from around the Arabic world into the Afghan war. Through al-Khadamat, bin Laden's inherited family fortune[46] paid for air tickets and accommodation, dealt with paperwork with Pakistani authorities and provided other such services for the jihad fighters. He moved to Peshawar in 1994.[citation needed] Osama established a camp in Afghanistan, and with other volunteers fought the Soviets. It was during his time in Peshawar that he began to wear camouflage-print jackets and carrying a captured Soviet assault rifle, which urban legends claimed he had obtained by killing a Russian soldier with his bare hands.[47]

Anyway, I have better things to do than argue with a would-be terrorist. Good day.

I'm confident that the descriptions in this thread are a good approximation. To me it's obvious that Gulenko and Meged/Ovcharov describe different DCNH-subtypes though they describe the same accepting/producing-subtypes.